Lmao! Did OIT write that? I can't imagine living life thinking everyone is out to get you.
Do I have to pay this speed camera fine?
- Thread starter Hawk and Awe
- Start date
Lmao! Did OIT write that? I can't imagine living life thinking everyone is out to get you.
I'd be interested to see the percentage of false pings. I imagine that number is out there somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.
maybe ask somebody who has had a ticket sent to them when they weren't even driving the vehicle.
It's not about wanting to go 10 over the limit, but hey....lets set the tolerance to 6 over...i mean, if you aren't going 6 over you don't have anything to worry about, amirite.
are semi trucks still exempt from these speed cameras? IMr. Corbett likely saved his old employer, CRST a lot of money doing that.
Employees have gotten them in our company vehicles. You know who paid for them? The driver. Your beef should be with the person speeding in your vehicle, not on the camera that caught them doing it.
are semi truck drivers still exempt from these cameras.
Like i said in an earlier post, we should just be mandated to put trackers in our vehicles and anytime they register a speed over the limit, a ticket is issued. after all, if you dont speed........
What if you have a bunch of vehicles and a bunch of employees and it's not clear who was driving this particular vehicle at 1:02 p.m. on December 28th?
We have something called a toll transponder for our SunPass toll roads system in Florida. I once got a charge for someone going through the toll booth in Pompano Beach when I was 300 miles from that location that day. Glitches happen.
How often do those glitches happen though? I feel comfortable saying north of 90% of the people complaining about getting ticketed by these cameras were actually driving and were actually speeding. They 're just pissed that they got ticketed. I don't feel bad for these people. Which goes back to my original post. You were speeding and got caught. Man up and move on.
But what if something is really wrong with the ticket? Just pay it and chalk it up to "glitches don't happen that often"?
No, not at all. If you know for a fact that you weren't speeding or weren't even in the area like you said, by all means fight it. But again how often is that actually the case? I just don't see a reason to completely discount something because once out of every 100 times it glitches. Which is why I am generally curious at the actual percentage of glitches.
So, we're back to the right to confront the accuser. Something that our wonderful friend, theIowaHawk, thinks is something I "don't understand."
Except that is not what I said. Traffic flow through the s curves is generally at about 60 mph, so almost everyone is driving over the speed limit. If you get a ticket, however, you are going significantly faster than the speed limit. Those are the drivers that should be ticketed in any situation, whether it be by camera, or cop, or radar from a plane, or any other technology that happens in the future.
The difference between surveillance video showing you committed a crime and a speed camera is that the speed camera takes a picture of the license plate. Anyone could be driving that car.
On surveillance, it's your face which proves YOU were there. And there is a victim in that crime. There is no victim in me speeding.
On surveillance, it's your face which proves YOU were there. And there is a victim in that crime. There is no victim in me speeding.
This, I have one from the North side of Muscatine on 61. Freeking classic speed trap.
This is such a complete pile of horse crap.
You would have to be a complete and utter fool not to understand that the cameras in that area has made the stretch safer overall - and the reason it was dangerous was drivers just like you being the norm rather than the exception.
People NEVER "slam on the brakes" through that. It wasn't "just a few" speeders. Half of the traffic was going 10+ over through there. Combine that with all the exits and entrances...then that bridge in wet driving conditions, accidents were seemingly a daily occurrence. They no longer are, the statistics prove it.
Again, I drive through there twice daily, both times rush hour traffic. 99 out of 100 cars go through there from 55 to 60 and are getting their speed dialed in and are in their needed lane a half mile for the cameras, Traffic rolls through there clean now. It the speeder morons nowadays who muck it up for them.
The cameras have had the desired effect. The area is monumentally safer than it was prior.
Safety is overrated. You could set a 10 mph speed limit if safety is the only consideration.
Well, if you loan your car to someone who speeds through there, you have lousy taste in friends. That still makes it YOUR fault.
Pick better friends next time.
No victim if you speed through there...that's a laugh. Tell you what, let's move the speed limit up to 65 through there, then wait two years, and total up the stats on accidents in the area and get back to me what they show. The stats prove the area is safer overall with the cameras than without.
Before the cameras. it was a weekly occurrence, ambulances, tow trucks, and cops pulling stupid drivers off the bridge, and at times almost a daily occurrence back then. It was ridiculous. It was Gumball Rally bad.
I can't remember the last time traffic was held up for an accident there. It is a BREEZE to get through that stretch nowadays.
So tell us, longlive...how exactly does going 55 to 60 through there cause harm to you? What does that extra 5 seconds onto your trip do to you in the grand scheme of things? Anything that quantifies near saving lives, reducing the damage all the accidents it prevents, and making the entire area safer for every motorist?
What true harm does that extra 5 seconds onto your trip cause?
You could achieve the same thing with heightened police presence. But cameras can write far more tickets than a police officer can. This is about government revenue, not safety.
Safety...is over-rated?
Well then, let's just remove seat belts, since they're all confining and all that. Air bags? Hell, tear them out.
Yet, the area is safer. Go figure. The desired effect they claim was the reason they put the cameras in for WORKED.
Yes, you are just so very predictable. Let me know how many lives airbags have saved and get back to me. Let's see, a million plus versus oh, 10.
Here's the ironic thing about all this. So, can't drive 55 through downtown CR, huh? So you rig up laws to where CR has to remove the cameras, even though the stats prove the area is now safer.
I guarantee you, remove those cameras, the limit going through there will then become 45, not 55.
I bet there's not a goddam law that can be written that can prevent THAT. Have fun driving 70 through there when it happens.
Again, most people complaining about these things WERE driving. However, even if they weren't, that's not the cameras fault. Take it up with the person driving your car. Pretty sure with most coverage, if that person wrecks your car, your insurance covers it, and your premiums can go up because of it because you are still responsible for that car.
If someone is speeding in your car make them pay the ticket, don't blame the people that caught them doing it.
Can you post what "all sorts of things can go wrong"? Are they any different than relying on the same radars LEOs personally use?
Exactly. Just like the radar that the supreme court says we have the right to cross examine the actual technician who calibrated it and declared it to be accurate.
How about this, read the opinion first, as you clearly don't actually understand the implications you claim you do, nor why it doesn't even apply here.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-bullcoming.pdf
my experience going through the S curve is that traffic tends to go around 50.
I am passing people at the speed limit, and leaving them quickly behind at 5 over. the speed cameras have caused a cluster**ck of people too chickenshit to go the speed limit
Last edited:
You are still missing the very first thing: does the 6th amendment even apply? Why are you saying this is a criminal prosecution?
In case you blew right past it, the case you linked was a drunk driving charge, not a civil camera ticket.
and on a side note, you are quoting a response to another poster and pretty much coming at me for essentially putting words in your mouth.
Most witnesses testify to their observations of factual conditions or events. Where, for example, a police officer’s report recorded an objective fact Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 3 Syllabus such as the read-out of a radar gun, the state court’s reasoning would permit another officer to introduce the information, so long as he or she was equipped to testify about the technology the observing officer deployed and the police department’s standard operating procedures. As, e.g., Davis v. Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 826, makes plain, however, such testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause. The comparative reliability of an analyst’s testimonial report does not dispense with the Clause. Crawford, 541 U. S., at 62. The analysts who write reports introduced as evidence must be made available for confrontation even if they have “the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa.” Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at ___, n. 6. Pp. 10–11.
Pretty easy to see that heavier enforcement actually leads to unsafe conditions, having to stop people on the very stretch of interstate you are trying to make safer.
if safety is such a concern, as I said previously, lets put these in school zones. I pointed out the driving i see on a daily basis around the school. Hell, there was a kid that got hit earlier in the school year. , thats not a revenue generator, however
You could have police cars with dummies in them and the effect would be that everybody slows down and drives real polite.
One of two things is obvious: either you haven't read it, or you don't understand it.
The issue in the case was whether a person operating s blood-alcohol testing machine can be substituted for someone else who just testifies to the result. Obviously, according to the court, the person who did the test needs to testify so that they can be cross-examined about how the test was done.
What you miss is that the 6th only applies in criminal prosecutions. That is the very first hurdle you must clear.
Your case would be akin to a LEO watching the video/photo of you speeding, writing it in a report, and then an entirely different LEO reading his report to the jury.
You realize that nothing in what you posted, nor the case itself, says the 6th applies to civil, non-criminal prosecutions...right?
I asked you this very early on, can you not think of any other situations where civil penalties are instituted without criminal prosecution?
Good grief, I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd argue it.
If the Sixth only applies to criminal prosecutions, why would the Supremes cite radar guns in justification of their ruling?
Courts all over the country have ruled against speeding tickets issued by LEOs when they couldn't prove the machine was correctly calibrated. Courts have invalidated red light and speeding camera programs for the same reason (some right here in Florida). The supreme court even cited as such as a justification to rule the way they did and yet you still continue with your foolishness.
If the government wants to extract a fine from me on the basis that I did something wrong, then I should have the right to confront my accuser. If any court has found a way to weasel out of that, then such a court is wrong. As are you. I have the right to try and prove my innocence, and the only way to do that is to attack the validity of the device that is accusing me of wrongdoing.
I'm not ready to surrender our rights to an unimpeachable Robocop. Not sure why you are, either. Perhaps it's your pathological need to disagree with me about everything. Might want to seek help for that.
People drive 75 until they get near the camera areas and then they slow down. If you want to argue that then you do not drive that stretch of 380 daily.
If you think the cameras are there for safety rather than for revenue generation, you're fooling yourself.
As the previous poster pointed out, if safety were the goal, they'd have placed the cameras in school zones and places like Collinsville Road around the mall. These cameras are for money and the idiot city government that implemented them didn't even do that right. They contracted a company out of New York and the city only gets like 40% of the revenue.
I guess you have to do whatever you can to make money when you spend millions on stupid crap like a failed casino and paying a company millions for your new library location only to tear down the building and have to spend millions more on asbestos. That city government is the absolute worst and I'm glad I moved away.
If you think the cameras are there for safety rather than for revenue generation, you're fooling yourself.
As the previous poster pointed out, if safety were the goal, they'd have placed the cameras in school zones and places like Collinsville Road around the mall. These cameras are for money and the idiot city government that implemented them didn't even do that right. They contracted a company out of New York and the city only gets like 40% of the revenue.
I guess you have to do whatever you can to make money when you spend millions on stupid crap like a failed casino and paying a company millions for your new library location only to tear down the building and have to spend millions more on asbestos. That city government is the absolute worst and I'm glad I moved away.
